WASHINGTON, D.C., March 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – For thousands of children every year, the abortion drug RU-486 signals the end of their life. But thanks to a little-known procedure, more than 100 babies have been able to overcome the effects of RU-486 after their mothers changed their minds about aborting them.
At a press conference last week, Priests for Life and the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs praised the work of doctors that have saved 80 born babies and 51 babies still in-utero. Also in attendance were two women who changed their minds about aborting their children, as well as the first doctor to reverse RU-486's effects.
The RU-486 abortion protocol, which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, includes a total of three doctor visits over two weeks. Dr. Mary Davenport told reporters at the press conference that in addition to significant risks to her physical health, “the woman also has the guilt of knowing that she terminated her pregnancy.”
The first doctor to reverse RU-486, Dr. Matt Harrison, told conference attendees about how a woman came to him in 2007 to ask if the process could be reversed.
“I need to step out and pray,” Harrison told the woman. “Then I said a prayer and started looking through books and thinking about how RU-486 works.”
Then it occurred to him: “It essentially just blocks the progesterone receptors and starves the baby.”
Harrison said that he subsequently gave the woman progesterone, which saved the baby's life. Today, that child has “no problems and no ill effects,” Harrison said, and is “an excited little cheerleader for her local football team and just a great little joy to be around. She's doing wonderfully.”
Andrea Minichini likewise shared how she researched RU-486 after taking two abortion pills, and was able to save her son Gabriel's life.
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
Priests for Life's founder, Father Frank Pavone, told LifeSiteNews that the fact that the medical abortion process can be reversed has not received widespread media exposure.
“There has been an article published by physicians on the procedure in a medical journal,” he said, covering the mainstream media's coverage of the life-saving procedure. “As for further exposure in secular media, that is what we are working on now.”
“The abortion industry has not in any way supported this reversal procedure, to our knowledge, despite the fact that it simply responds to the choice of the mother,” Fr. Pavone said.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL did not respond to multiple requests for comment about whether the abortion leaders support the reversal process as part of its “pro-choice” stance on abortion.
